Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Mythbusting: Ideas Do Not Spread Because they are Good
danzarrella.com — I ’d like to debunk a myth that has gone on, rampant and unchallenged in marketing circles, especially viral and social marketing, for some time now: For an idea, piece of content or product to spread or (cringe) “go viral” it has to be a great product. This is WRONG.
mklopez- 905 diggs
- digg it
- Czechxican, on 05/28/2008, -55/+83This is so true. Religion is not a good idea, yet it spreads like crazy!
- oldhick, on 05/29/2008, -16/+35Generalizations aren't a good idea but they spread too... Faith is an important part of many peoples lives and has had some incredibly positive influence on helping certain people. I wouldn't argue that organized religion has been beneficial. But I also wouldn't argue that organized groups of any kind are that beneficial... With increased size and scope comes dilution of value.
To each his own I guess.- kingmanic, on 05/29/2008, -6/+9Anything can be positive and negative depending on the individual and circumstance. Religion can be a wonderful thing but it is prone to be mis used by those who can wrest control of a religion. Like the neo cons have done with protestant Christianity in the states.
- cerejota, on 05/29/2008, -6/+11*****, anything positive that religion has is more than canceled by all the evil crap it generates.
Nazi Germany built the autobahn and commissioned the Volkswagen, but I hope we can all agree that both things could have happened without slave labor, concentration camps, huge genocidal wars, and a totalitarian state.- Bith8654, on 05/29/2008, -5/+4In a large amount, if not a majority, of the major evils that are blamed on religion it isn't the religion itself, but individuals who unite people to commit horrible deeds "in the name of God." I don't think it's very far-fetched to think that these things would happen without religion, all the individual would have to do is use some other issue or cause to brainwash others.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all religions based on peace, regardless of what anyone says. All three clearly state "thou shall not kill" as well as steal, lie, etc.
However, people decide to warp scriptures and take them out of context in order to further their own ambitions. Whether it's so-called Christians leaders during the crusades convincing people that God wants a certain people dead, modern Islamic extremists that somehow justify the killing of innocent people, or certain Christian fundamentalists that say gays should be killed or that we should kill people in Iran to start the apocalypse.
On the other hand, religion can and is used in many positive ways such as the charity, care for the homeless, and assistance such as mission trips to assist third world countries. While these kinds of things go on every day, they are much less newsworthy in today's media than when someone decides to kill another person in the name of their god, so we don't hear about them or see their impact.
Overall, religion isn't the problem so much as the greed and ambitions of corrupt individuals. - bratterscain, on 05/29/2008, -5/+4***** because religion is *****. Science and observation tell us what is is what is needed for a wide range of applications because it is dynamic. Stories written 2000 years ago about how we should live our lives are not necessarily the way we should live them now. Sure, some things ring true but so is it with all stories.
And beneficial, you assume is to help humans thrive, which is not the case anymore. Humans need not thrive more than what a planet can sustain until we find another planet to thrive. So in some cases, beneficial does not necessarily mean for humanity to over-replicate and over-consume. Religion is static and if it changes at all, it changes in the mind of the reader to read how they see fit, but the words stay the same. To put all your "faith" in a storybook is foolish. - Bith8654, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1Right so we should just say screw it to all forms of assistance to those in poverty or third world countries as a means of population control? In many cases it's people with a mindset like that that forced those countries into third world conditions in the first place. Who knows what they have to offer if they were given the chance?
Frankley I don't think we are so above everyone else that we can play "you deserve to live and you don't" just because we are a bigger world power than they are.
- Bith8654, on 05/29/2008, -5/+4In a large amount, if not a majority, of the major evils that are blamed on religion it isn't the religion itself, but individuals who unite people to commit horrible deeds "in the name of God." I don't think it's very far-fetched to think that these things would happen without religion, all the individual would have to do is use some other issue or cause to brainwash others.
- Godlike, on 05/29/2008, -2/+5I don't really get the point - does the average person really not understand that just because an idea is popular it doesn't mean that it is of value?
I guess... wow... I guess it really is true... it certainly explains 'American Idol'.
Personally, I instantly question anything that has the object tag.
IF EVERYONE LIKES IT IT MUST SUCK
IF YOU HAVE NO ENEMIES YOU ARE WORTHLESS
IF YOU ARE READING THIS POST YOU ARE COOL AS ***** - aptanalogy, on 05/29/2008, -2/+3Religion obviously has some elements that have made it adaptive; at least, this WAS true for our ancestors. However, religion is tied to human psychology. People look for answers, and, more often than not, they are satisfied with the easy ones, even if these are based on little actual fact. Furthermore, religion organized society under a common purpose: the Church. With the Church telling you what to love and what to hate, the world is cast into a much sharper relief, and rational thought has been largely cast out of the equation by this point. The central problem, of course, happens when one trusts his fellow apes to come up with answers to problems that they themselves cannot, in truth, solve with any intellectual honesty. The power was never with "the oracle", or the "holy of holies" or with "God"; it was with the priests who were in control of institutions that operated in a similar fashion to governmental organizations (and sometimes the two were selfsame), which had adopted rules of behavior and conduct that had suited humanity throughout evolution.
Regardless, I would say that, in this day and age, it cannot possibly be of any benefit to the collective of the society as a whole to prop up religion any longer. People are NOT justified in having beliefs that could be false. If they lack evidence they should also lack belief. For instance, let's say that a merchant buys a fleet of ships and sends them to another port where they will bring some of his goods. To save some money, he declines the usual safety inspection. Now let's say the ships get there intact, but once they arrived at the other port, it was noticed that the ships were in poor shape somehow and it was amazing that they had made the journey. Was the merchant justified in believing that the trip would turn out well, given that he hadn't collected the necessary data to ensure a proper voyage on the part of his ship?- oldhick, on 05/29/2008, -3/+1The only major flaw in your argument is that faith by definition is the belief in that which can't be explained.
- aptanalogy, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Except that, even defined this way, faith is used explain EVERYTHING for many people, despite getting their views from epistemologically shaky grounds. The foundation for their beliefs is poor, just like the ship merchant's basis for believing his ships will be OK is poor. Thus, their beliefs are unjustified, and if something cannot be explained currently, epistemologically sound methods of scientific inquiry should be used to determine what is happening; failing this, it is logical to remain unenlightened about that particular phenomenon.
- Ph0N37Ic5, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1The flaw in your argument is of course that it can be applied equally to science. It is only the method of investigation that differs. But why am I telling you this, you are likely to be too stuck up in "scientific facts" to see that there might be more to the universe than meets the eye.
- aptanalogy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Partially correct. There might be more to the universe than meets the eye. This, however, is irrelevant to my statement, which indicated that there is no reason to believe that this is true until proper investigation reveals evidence for the belief in, for example, "God". The difference between science and faith is that science actually IS a "method of investigation". Remember, the ship builder chose to BELIEVE, rather to investigate for himself; this is very contrary to the scientific method, and that was the whole point.
- Hypersapien, on 05/29/2008, -5/+8Faith is a crutch. It is important to those people's lives because they never learned how to walk on their own two feet, and they don't know any other way to live. Quite possibly because as small children they were forced to use the crutch by the previous generation of people who didn't know any other way to live.
- oldhick, on 05/29/2008, -5/+1Wow, its pretty easy for you to judge people you've never met. No one is judging you for how you live your life. Give people a break sometimes and learn to love.
- Squidwalk, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2We don't know that no one is judging Hypersapien. He's being judged by the religious if he's male, female, single, married, divorced, straight, bi, gay, if he uses contraception, worships any god, does not worship any god, believes in science, or any other number of other factors.
We don't know how Hypersapien lives his life. But it's almost certain he's being judged.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3"Generalizations aren't a good idea but they spread too..." is a generalization.
Just like "All generalizations are always bad" is a generalization.
"Generalizations are not always bad or incorrect."- oldhick, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1Yeah, that was kind of the point...
- aptanalogy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1This statement is false.
- Synchro, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3Faith is VERY different from religion. Religion is for those that need it. When I say that, it is not negative. It means that some people need the community, support and help that religion provides. Just as some people need weight watchers in order to loose weight. Could they do all those things on their own that they would do in weight watchers? Yes, but they have the need for the community, support and help it provides for them to reach their goals. Just because someone does not need those things that the institution provides, it does not mean they do not have faith or are less of a person though.
- danieldrehmer, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5You can consider it good, but it doesn't make it true.
- oldhick, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1Nor does YOU considering it bad. That is why faith is a personal thing.
- beakerwimp, on 05/29/2008, -9/+42Czechxican: oldhick has a good point. Generalizations are not productive. I'm an atheist, but the concept of religion is not necessarily "a bad idea". Religion obviously has powerful beneficial influence on millions of people. Not to mention the fact that from a utilitarian standpoint it has many aspects that might have improved the chances for human survival throughout human history to date. It also of course can be used in harmful ways, but so can anything. Chainsaws are pretty useful. We shouldn't call them a bad idea just because some maniac cut a few heads off with one. If you reject religion because you see yourself as a rational person, you should use that rational power to engage with differing viewpoints in a productive way.
- cerejota, on 05/29/2008, -11/+5This is a cop out. I am not an atheist, but religion is *****.
Even the Pastafarians have crappy stuff... - bullhead2007, on 05/29/2008, -3/+12The problem with nearly every religion is that it is aimed to divide. Either people are part of your religion or they are heathens, blasphemers, and sinners. Most religions have a lot of ancient baggage and bad ideas. Most of all the concept of "faith", belief in something without question, compartmentalizes the brain. It allows people to think logically about everything except when it involves their faith. People in high powers of religions are able to influence a massive amount of people merely by interpreting the literature of their faith to fit their agendas, and it's the rule not the exception.
Everything good that is generated from religion can be obtained outside of any religion as well.- 180andback, on 05/29/2008, -1/+5Why are you being dugg down?
- bullhead2007, on 05/29/2008, -0/+6No idea. I thought I explained why I feel religion is bad instead of just saying it is. I'd like some comments to at least see why people disagree or think I should be dug down.
I'm not saying religious people are bad, I'm saying that a lot of the concepts in religion lend to bad things, and that the good things that people attribute to religion could be obtained through another means.
I'm open to counter argument, but this is digg. - Squidwalk, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3I dugg you up bullhead2007. But your initial statement, while true, made me laugh. beakerwimp's comparison of religion and chainsaws still holds against your criticism, as the purpose of a chainsaw is to divide as well =)
There's a lot of zealots on digg. Say something like "problem of evil" or "foundationalism cannot be epistomologically justified" and a bury brigade comes a-runnin' without a reply comment to be found. - beakerwimp, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1bullhead2007: You make some good points. I agree with you that "everything good that is generated from religion can be obtained outside of any religion as well". Yes, these goals "can be obtained" from the outside, but are they necessarily obtained from the outside? Also, can these goals be obtained from the outside by ANY person or only by people who think in certain ways? These are important questions.
You are correct that some believers exhibit bad behavior and treat outsiders in a close-minded way, but this is not true of all believers. That is the reason I oppose the generalization that was made. The core of most world religions is peace and love. This is a fairly objective fact despite some deviations you can find in the bible, koran, upanishads, etc. If human beings do not have the philosophical capacity to take this fact to heart and treat each other with respect it doesn't necessarily mean that the concept of religion itself is counterproductive to human existence in my opinion. Does generalizing all religious believers into one unfavorable category help the portion of believers who are in fact on a good philosophical path?
I don't know much, but I do get a sense that I should not generalize about other human beings based on beliefs they have that I don't agree with or don't understand.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3"Religion obviously has powerful beneficial influence on millions of people"
I don't think this is obvious at all. What does this even mean? Does it mean that millions of people are happy because of religion? How do you know that it is because of religion? Are you sure these people would not be happy without religion? Maybe these people are just naturally happy whatever they would have done. Could they have been even happier without it?
You say it is beneficial for millions of people, but there are almost 7 BILLION people in the world. How many people has religion been detrimental too? I think you would agree that IF something (not necessarily religion) helps 5 million, but hurts 10 million people, it's net effect is not beneficial.
I am not saying that religion is always a bad influence. But I also don't think it's obviously a good influence.- oldhick, on 05/29/2008, -4/+1Why don't you let people decide for themselves?
- bratterscain, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3So if believing in ***** fairy tales would help someone, does it mean it should be the rational societal norm? Say a clinically insane man has visions of a god and convinces others you can't see him because he's not supposed to be seen? How can you rationally argue with someone who doesn't use rationality? This is the reason religion exists and continues as a meme, because of often uneducated people who base their lives on something that's illogical. As I said before, it's a lot safer to not believe, but know what is is what is than jump to ***** conclusions that came from some book that has so many logical inconsistencies.
- beakerwimp, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2TsuruchiBrian: Okay, you make a good point. My use of the word "obviously" was a bit too much. I agree with your implication that nothing is absolutely obvious. But I didn't argue that religion is beneficial on the whole. I, like you, simply don't think it is accurate to portray religion as absolutely devoid of merit and I disagree with generalizations about all religious believers. If it is beneficial to certain individuals and to society in certain ways, it does indeed have some kind of merit. How much merit? If you want to debate whether or not the net gain or loss of benefit due to religion throughout human history is positive I think we will be posting in this thread on and off for the rest of our lives. Even if we come to a conclusion we're satisfied with I don't think we'll go down in philosophical history as the two people who solved this eternal question once and for all. :)
- cerejota, on 05/29/2008, -11/+5This is a cop out. I am not an atheist, but religion is *****.
- kmckanna, on 05/29/2008, -19/+7Without Religion, there'd be no human morals. Without morals there'd be chaos. Is this the world you want to live in? Yes, Religion has caused some chaos in the past and of course it sparks up medial fights everyday in the world. However, if there was no religion and everything was based on science, eventually people would have nothing to live for but knowing they are steps in an evolutionary cycle. They are expendable. When their family members and loved ones die, why live on because we'll NEVER see them again? Religion (many different ones) give us different hopes in reconnecting with our loved ones as they pass. Religion gives people something to live for beyond the simple fact of going to work, make money, pay bills, do it again.
Religion helps keep a balance. If there was any less morality in the world, then there would be many more murders, disgusting crimes, and extremely ridiculous practices.
I know everyone is not fond of Religion, but you have to look at both sides.
I am only stating this argument in a friendly matter, so let's discuss!- treed, on 05/29/2008, -0/+12Back up. I'd like to see you defend your first statement that morals must necessarily come from religion. I don't see that this is so.
- loquax, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2I agree, he didn't really do a great job of proving that point, but I will argue that morality (which I am defining as a cosmic constant that divides good from bad) requires a faith (if not a religion) in that there is some sort of arbiter that decides what is moral or immoral. If I say that behavior A is moral and that behavior B is immoral, I am basically positing myself or some external "ruler" (in both senses of the word) as the "measure of all things." Both of which are a huge leap of faith.
- treed, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1We can each decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Good is that which benefits, but benefits whom? What is good for me might not be good for you. What is good for society might be bad for both of us. It's all a matter of perspective. But my morals are basically determined on my own good, and so is each person. We organize in societies so that we might all protect ourselves against evil, and promote the good.
- kingmanic, on 05/29/2008, -0/+9Morality is not derived form religion. Morality is commonly accepted behavior. Religion isn't the root of morality, morality is the root of religion because the need for fairness and the distinct absence of fairness in real life causes one to want justice in some form. Thus religion.
Look back, you'd notice that the religious devoteness of people is independent of their ability to commit heinous acts to other people. From the witch hunts, to the Spanish inquisition, to Mao to Stalin to torture of people in guantanamo. Morality does not derive from religion. - debuffplx, on 05/29/2008, -1/+6Since when was religion the sole manufacturer of morality? Morality exists in us naturally as part of our survival instincts and is enhanced though observation and experience. Religion and faith have contributed nothing to this.
- known, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2And every religion is a form of socio-economic collusion...
- HairyFotr, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3And what if there is no god or afterlife? A life of self-deception, but arguably feeling better about yourself? And if you believe that morality comes from religion alone, why are most people moral?
I can see religion as an important part of human history, but there seems to be less and less place and need for it as we progress further technologicaly and socialy. I'm an agonstic. - Fordi, on 05/29/2008, -0/+7Eh. Put yourself in the shoes of an anrgy atheist (that is, a rational being with a bent towards reducing the influence of religion on policy - that is, you have an interest in long-term effects as well as effects on society at large, without losing sight of short-term / individual effects), then consider a few of your basic sins (murder, theft) and the consequences for those actions.
Now, consider some of the basic goods (samaritanism, philanthropy) and the benefits of those.
If you're having a hard time, I suggest that you haven't yet mastered the basic understanding of a true moral framework necessary to be a moral atheist. As such, you're better off in your religious bondage - but realize that without this understanding, you behave morally out of fear, not because you're an inherently moral person.
If you get what I'm saying immediately, on the other hand, congratulations! You're moral compass points more towards an actual sense of right and wrong than towards fear of your God. You may make it to heaven yet! - TsuruchiBrian, on 05/29/2008, -1/+4You're an idiot.
I am only stating this argument in a friendly matter, so let's discuss! - kmckanna, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1First off you probably think that I am very Religious by defending a certain point, which I am not, so please, take that argument and stick far where your brain is which seems to be up your asses at this rate because your minds are so closed to opinions on the topic of Religion that it might as well be constricted in your rectums.
You see, this is why arguing on Digg about religion is pointless. It's purely a site that's entire community is clearly bounded Athiests who take no accepting to any other principles except that Religion is terrible and that there is no God.
I can see how Religion causes many problems in the world, many have died over it, there is a lot of disagreement on it. However, what right is there to even think of the possibility to just 'end' Religion anyway. (This is getting off topic from the article, but who cares).
You say Religion and faith contribute nothing, but do you not realize CLEARLY how many more people out there would be going insane as life goes on knowing that there is no true meaning except to live and die by principles of science? Do you not understand that? Of course not because you are closed minded Athiests, yes I am using the word closed-minded. Ignorance surely is bliss for you. This just turned unfriendly.
Although I should have chosen my words better, I mean to say there would be MUCH LESS morality in the world, rather than NO morals. Things would be more chaotic and there would be LESS stability in the world. There are a lot of people out there who would go insane knowing there was nothing more to live for than literally... nothing. If you can't master the thought process of how things could be when they aren't, then you obviously should shut your mouths and stop typing about Religion, or in that fact, try to argue about anything.
If you go and take religion out of all of history, there is a good chance your pretty lives living in the free country of the U.S. wouldn't exist... in fact, everything that is today, would most likely be completely different. Assuming many of us are from the U.S. that is. Also for you other countries, without Religion, the world most likely would be in a completely different state, a state where freedoms are not existent. If that's the world you would want to live in at the cost of freedom, then move to North Korea.
People left Europe and moved to different colonies to PRACTICE their own religions freely, now, if that didn't happen, do you think the colonies would have began? No.
So keep up your talk about how Religion is so terrible, yet, without it, you could be living in what is a totalitarian country, or run by a dictator.- HairyFotr, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3I think the only disrespectful post here was by TsuruchiBrian, the others just told you to prove your point on morality and to consider the "what if" of the nonexistence of a god. Talking about asses and sticking things places... that is unfriendly. And noone is forcing you to stop believing or to stop defending your point - it's just that in an open discussion your views are going to be challenged and questioned by others unless look absolutely true to everyone. What is the point of stating something if noone is supposed point out or ask about things that don't seem true to him. Give a more convincing answer, ask things... let's talk!
I said I can see the historic role, but not a modern one, and you took it wrong and tried taking it out of history completely but did it wrong by cherry-picking a few events that wouldn't happen, leading to some bizare totalitarian state conclusion. A single man acting differently in one moment in history might make everything different - religion is something that affected billions in the course of history, so there can be infinitely many guesses what might happen if religion never happened.
Why do you believe so many people would just lose their minds if god was disproven somehow(even though it's impossible to disprove something that isn't clearly and precisely defined). Wouldn't they just realize that they had lived just fine until that point - that their will to live was in them this whole time, and continue with life. Sure it's hard to let go something held so close for so long... and harder still to adapt to a seemingly grimmer reality, but I'm doing it just fine. And the roses still smell good, and life is still full of surprises and new things.
I'm an agnostic - there is no way i'll become an atheist, since its impossible to disprove the concept of god, but until a god shows himself I also have no reason to believe there is one. - TsuruchiBrian, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1I don't feel I need to be respectful of other people that are not respectful of me.
kmckannakmckanna said...
"Without Religion, there'd be no human morals."
He is stating this as a premise upon which he is trying to base his other arguments. BUt his premise assumes that we need God to have morals. As someone who does not believe in God, I don't agree with the "fact" that you need God to be moral. I know many atheists who are very moral, and many religious people who are not. In many parts of the world, it is very rude to suggest that someone does not have any morals.
My post assumed a premise that kmckanna is an idiot. And unlike kmckanna's post, I think mine at least has evidence to back it up.
- HairyFotr, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3I think the only disrespectful post here was by TsuruchiBrian, the others just told you to prove your point on morality and to consider the "what if" of the nonexistence of a god. Talking about asses and sticking things places... that is unfriendly. And noone is forcing you to stop believing or to stop defending your point - it's just that in an open discussion your views are going to be challenged and questioned by others unless look absolutely true to everyone. What is the point of stating something if noone is supposed point out or ask about things that don't seem true to him. Give a more convincing answer, ask things... let's talk!
- treed, on 05/29/2008, -0/+12Back up. I'd like to see you defend your first statement that morals must necessarily come from religion. I don't see that this is so.
- doshindude, on 05/29/2008, -7/+5mob mentalities aren't a good idea either, but people like you make them spread. Don't generalize, ass.
- MaynardJK, on 05/29/2008, -5/+5Not using the riply button isn't a good idea either, but people like you make it spread. Use the ***** reply button, ass.
- cerejota, on 05/29/2008, -5/+1Where is the "riply button"?
O. I gets it.
- cerejota, on 05/29/2008, -5/+1Where is the "riply button"?
- MaynardJK, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4I can't type today.
- edwartica, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2that's ok, I can't brain today myself.
- MaynardJK, on 05/29/2008, -5/+5Not using the riply button isn't a good idea either, but people like you make it spread. Use the ***** reply button, ass.
- whiterice0, on 05/29/2008, -16/+6No. Religion spreads because "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20)
- Fordi, on 05/29/2008, -0/+7Yeah. You just let the preacher keep on telling you that; I'm certain that dark ages authors had a good and clear understanding of how memes replicate.
- 180andback, on 05/29/2008, -0/+6Hey, it's a Bible quote. I'll tell you, man. Diggers will reference ANYTHING these days to get a laugh.
- Hypersapien, on 05/29/2008, -0/+6And yet, when pressed, believers can never point out examples of god's "eternal power and divine nature".
- aptanalogy, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4So that's clearly why people, having received a "clear" message from God, decided that God was Vishnu, and Allah, and Jehovah, and Ganesh, and Jesus, and Athena, and Jupiter, and Thor, Hera, Horus, Osiris, Ancestors, animal spirits, lucky pennies, Barack Obama, and Mr. Rogers. They all "clearly" believe this; example: the Crusades, and another example: jihadism.
- Squidwalk, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2And Religion is adhere to because "23: And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24: And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. (2 Kings 2:23-24)
That ***** will kill your children with bears if you mock him!
- nycmac247, on 05/29/2008, -5/+2you mean _monotheism_ is not a good idea, right?
- Fordi, on 05/29/2008, -1/+4Well, theism in general, really.
- Hypersapien, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3Why? Are you suggesting that polytheism is any better?
- 180andback, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3My gods will gang up on your god.
- Squidwalk, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Well, polytheistic pantheons have gods that are greater personifications of human traits. As a morality metaphor, they're more effective. There's also the appeal of picking the god that you identify most with.
Then again, the factionalization of followers to different gods in a polytheistic religion isn't all that different from the factionalization of Christians. That doesn't help much.
I like the mythologies of polytheistic religions better anyway though. Monotheistic stories tend to have a God/dude dynamic, which is usually less interesting than a God/God/dude dynamic. How boring would the story of Paris and the golden apple be in a monotheistic religion?
- minorthreat, on 05/29/2008, -6/+5Im not affiliated with any religion and I'm glad to see that people now believe religion isn't everything. Im happy I don't have preachers telling me Im going to hell for riding my skateboard down the sidewalk also. But now I can see it is starting to turn the other way around. Condemning those who practice a religion and saying it isn't good idea, makes you no better than the religious telling you that you are going to hell. Please take a few college courses on religion and educate yourself. Even though it seems most of religion is full of corrupt individuals, religion has been useful in the past, it has uses in today's world also. It can bring people together, relax the mind, and many other things... There are far more non-Christians than Christians in this world. Every religion isn't american christianity.
- Fordi, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Religion exists to mediate the immoral, far as I can see. Of course, given all the corruption that is visible, it seems more and more that it's not doing the job as it should be.
- bratterscain, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3And you're no better than those who don't believe or believe. You sit here and rant because people don't or won't want to see your side while you won't bother to see their side either. I've been in all the shoes and so I can safely end my journey claiming religion is *****. Argue petty things about what it's done and not done, I'm strictly interested in the science of things, not the things conjectured or told in a story, nor do I base my life on the unknown. You're sitting here arguing against people arguing. Who the ***** do you think you are?
- Squidwalk, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1What if you're like me, and you condemn religion as a poor idea based on the fact that it's epistomologically indefensible to form belief structures based on foundationalism? Or that all the social benefits religion could produce could be produced as easily by a secular group devote to those benefits?
I took a class or two.
- xenoblue, on 05/29/2008, -9/+2yeah, because morals are such a horrible thing
- Hypersapien, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4What do morals have to do with religion?
- gobrite, on 05/29/2008, -7/+1You have a partially good point. False Religion has spread like a malicious weed, everyone seems to want to go with what's in mode, faddish for that time.
However, Jesus said true Religion would be different. He said, “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and FEW are the ones finding it.'' - Matthew 7:13,14. Also, Luke 13:20.
This is why I like Jehovah's Witnesses. They have never been overly concerned with what other men think of their religion. They have always been more concerned with the opinion of Jehovah God.- bratterscain, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5And Islamic Jihadists only care about what Allah thinks. Your point?
- Hypersapien, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4And how have you determined that your religion is the 'true religion'? Because of what the bible says? I can write a book claiming that god said that the center of the earth is filled with limburger cheese, that wouldn't make it true.
- DRock4776, on 05/29/2008, -0/+11Dawkins sums it up nicely in The Selfish Gene:
"The survival value of the god meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal. It provides a superficially plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about existence. It suggests that injustices in this world may be rectified in the next. The `everlasting arms' hold out a cushion against our own inadequacies which, like a doctor's placebo, is none the less effective for being imaginary. These are some of the reasons why the idea of God is copied so readily by successive generations of individual brains."
Full chapter on memes: http://www.rubinghscience.org/memetics/dawkinsmeme ... - afrodisia, on 05/29/2008, -1/+0don't forget that bastion of idiocy, political correctness....
- oldhick, on 05/29/2008, -16/+35Generalizations aren't a good idea but they spread too... Faith is an important part of many peoples lives and has had some incredibly positive influence on helping certain people. I wouldn't argue that organized religion has been beneficial. But I also wouldn't argue that organized groups of any kind are that beneficial... With increased size and scope comes dilution of value.
- cmiller1, on 05/28/2008, -0/+64This has nothing to do with the Mythbusters, what a rip!
Nice article, check the video at the end.- Stupidumb, on 05/29/2008, -4/+10DON'T ***** TELL ME WHAT TO DO
- NickD, on 05/28/2008, -7/+21I think memes catch on when it is easy for the carrier to spread them, and there is something social in it for the person spreading it. Well formulated and easy to share stories are a good example. I think "great" is subjective. it is great for the person spreading it, but not for society at large. Religion is arguably the worst meme ever.
- danzarrella, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Heylighen has done great work detailing memetic selection criteria: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMSELC.html
- cmiller1, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6I think the point of the article was that they survive not based on being great for the spreader or great for society at large, but rather the suitability for survival of said meme, which might take other factors into accounts such as ease of transfer. Before youtube there were a lot fewer "viral" videos
- bratterscain, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Exactly. Christianity says there is no luke warm. Other religions do this as well. They sucker you in with 'good' words then you learn, it's all or nothing or else it's hell you go or some other form of punishment. Gangs do this, organizations do it, countless religions, etc.
- calipan, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1"Well formulated and easy to share stories" yeah because all the spam email from Nigeria or the Microsoft $5 refund program were so eloquently written.
Memes are spread because of some kind of emotional connection to something. They have to be really funny, really sad, really scary, really upsetting, etc. Memes have to break some kind of threshold in the human psyche that turns us from observers to carriers. Youtube and a lot of these social sites did not invent memes, all they did was lower the threshold where a human will actually get off his ass to send something. It made transmission of memes easier. It also increased the so called "friend base". In the past the circles of friends were much smaller so memes were more than likely stuck in these circles on small islands of micro-cultures. They would move to other islands only though interconnections between members that belonged to several circles. With email and them social media the circles became bigger, and yet more impersonally. You have groups of people where the circles are several hundred to several thousand in size, and belong to other circles of various size. Memes can more more fluidly through these mediums at much fast rates.
- UltramegaOK, on 05/29/2008, -2/+84I reject your reality and substitute my own.
- tadhgisaledgend, on 05/29/2008, -3/+1LAH-la LALA LALA Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!
- mikedoth, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1I love the reference to Mythbusters!
- alwaysmc2, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1Dugg... assuming that you are being sarcastic.
- tosan, on 05/29/2008, -3/+12I reject UltramegaOK's reality but blog about it anyway.
- danzarrella, on 05/29/2008, -3/+1the comment is a lie
- Fordi, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2I reject your comment and substitute it with CAKE!
- danzarrella, on 05/29/2008, -3/+1the comment is a lie
- wild, on 05/29/2008, -6/+16Am I the only one laughing at the irony the author cringes at "go viral" and yet has viral marketing in his site header? And its a poorly written article. He makes a statement, and then links to other people's work to support his ideas. This would be fine, except he doesn't follow those up with his own insights or even pull quotes to support his arguments.
I'll give him a mythbusting insight: Articles that hit hit the front page on Digg don't always do so because they are good. Case in point.
Oh, and this idea enters the "no ***** Sherlock." If old Watson here would dig a little deeper, he would know what the big advertising agencies figured out a few years ago. Viral takes creation, placement, and a whole lot of luck. It also takes authenticity. That is what makes it hard for advertisers to use. - nick111, on 05/29/2008, -5/+13One for the free-market fundamentalists I think.
An uncontrolled market where (to use a darwinian analogy (hell, they do)) the most vicious predators, then most insidious parasites, the most agressive resource-hoggers thrive, does not automatically bode well for the hosting society.- thescimitar, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2If anything, in a truly free market system, producers of consumables that have values outside of the lowest common denominator's capacity to appreciate them with have to adapt or risk perishing (or at least marginalization). Look at the Sangiovese controversy in the wine market.
- stanleyford, on 05/29/2008, -2/+6"An uncontrolled market where (to use a darwinian analogy (hell, they do)) the most vicious predators, then most insidious parasites, the most agressive resource-hoggers thrive" -- One of the common misconceptions about the free market is that depredation is central to a free market. Nothing could be further from the truth. A free market relies on participants behaving honestly and ethically when dealing with one another; a market in which some participants cheat and defraud others is anything but free. And as for "insidious parasites"? The free market is particularly good at dealing with those, since, in a free market, the level of renumeration one receives is directly tied to one's ability to provide goods and services others desire; parasites don't last very long when they don't have anything to offer that others want.
- ZenMojo, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1And yet Free-Market Fundamentalists are against any regulation of propriety and honesty in dealing. Talk about your Utopianism.
- stanleyford, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1"And yet Free-Market Fundamentalists are against any regulation of propriety and honesty in dealing." -- Really? Give me an example.
- ZenMojo, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1And yet Free-Market Fundamentalists are against any regulation of propriety and honesty in dealing. Talk about your Utopianism.
- ICSU, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1nick111,
you obviously don't understand basics of free market.
Hint: perfect information is a condition.- ZenMojo, on 05/29/2008, -2/+2How do you achieve perfect information? Regulation...?
- znhs, on 05/29/2008, -0/+8Dugg. Mainly for the picture of the unicorn flexing its bicep, but also for the cool bankground on memeology
- Noureddin, on 05/29/2008, -10/+4Myth busters usually do their "Tests" incorrectly or just fail to do it right... Mostly everything they do is inaccurate.
- kingmanic, on 05/29/2008, -0/+9The rigor they apply and the principles as well are better then 95% of the rest of humanity. They popularize scientific thought and principles and while they may lack 'scientific' rigor, within the scope of what they can do and still remain entertaining they do a decent job. I'd prefer my future progeny watch mythbusters then Hannah Montana. Myth busters teachers them science and a respect for the natural world, Hannah Montana teaches consumerism and clique dynamics.
- Locnar, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1He's just pissed cause they used a picture of a unicorn on a site about myth busting.... ;)
- Stupidumb, on 05/29/2008, -10/+3www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
- chuckDontSurf, on 05/29/2008, -1/+11Digg is a perfect example of this.
- MattSkiX13, on 05/29/2008, -4/+1way too many big words...
- halobender, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Maybe you should read more.
- halobender, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Maybe you should read more.
- hiteshsharma, on 05/29/2008, -2/+0How can he just extend the Gene theory to marketing.. There is no proper research.. nothing at all Its like taking his word against others..
:(- source1984, on 05/29/2008, -1/+0Dawkins does that.
- Fordi, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1It's because of the conceptual parallels between genetics and memetics:
1) Memes reproduce
2) Memes variate as they reproduce
3) There is competition (for attention) between memes
4) Memes without sufficient resources (attention) die off
5) Memes can be more or less likely to survive to reproduction based on varying factors
Truth is, evolutionary theory in general is valid for all cases in which the players have replication, variation and attrition.
Mind you, none of these have anything to do with how 'good' a meme is, but on how successful a meme is at replicating, using individuals as hosts. However, frameworks like the scientific method do influence the environment that the memes must survive in, and as such, allow for controlled memetic evolution towards a goal (in the case of science, universal understanding).
- debuffplx, on 05/29/2008, -4/+8Bad ideas that went viral:
Twitter
Facebook
Flash video
The adoption of flash by lazy designers and developers- wild, on 05/29/2008, -1/+4You know, the internet has space for both information AND fun. ;-)
- debuffplx, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3Exactly my point. Those contribute neither.
- wild, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Sure they do. Sharing your life easily with friends is fun. Going to a movie website to play games and experience some of the characters is fun. Watching YouTube is fun.
Arguing against flash shows a weird techy bias. Its like graphics and design don;t have a place on the web. Just code and words.
- funkywood, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1How about Crazy Frog?
- wild, on 05/29/2008, -1/+4You know, the internet has space for both information AND fun. ;-)
- usgovterrorists, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2I'm sure we can all agree that neocons ideas are not spread because they are good, but because they are good for the NWO.
- noen, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1Well obviously ideas spread because they are funny.
- skierkegaard, on 05/29/2008, -1/+4Youtube of Dan Dennett at TED
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzGjEkp772s- grobinson, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3Why not link directly to TED, http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/116
- skierkegaard, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1I was getting a choppy connection.
- funkymoose, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1wtf is up with all the coughing btw. Got a half dozen people ruining the lecture by coughing it up.
- acidbathfan, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1That's an excellent video Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Howard Bloom are some of my favorite speakers. Dennett reminds me a lot of Robert Anton Wilson.
- grobinson, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3Why not link directly to TED, http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/116
- ferrariman60, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4Wow, give me some margin on the left side of the page please.
And do people actually think that viral marketing is driven by how good an idea is? You're far more likely to show a friend something that's a bad idea/fail in general than you are to show them something that great. Am I off base here?- Tibin05, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1You hit the nail on the head. I definitely don't think most viral things are good concepts. They're just interesting and/or funny.
- radiopayola, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2Ugh...Self-aggrandizing from a half-wit that seems to have dedicated his career to a bottom of the barrel corporate (pseudo-) "science".
- source1984, on 05/29/2008, -1/+0i take it you're talking about Dawkins?
- radiopayola, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Hmm, yes I suppose it works there also...
- source1984, on 05/29/2008, -1/+0i take it you're talking about Dawkins?
- rexreason, on 05/29/2008, -7/+4I agree completely with this. For example, see "Obama, Barack."
- ZenMojo, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1See: Republican Party.
- Stevethegreat, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1No, but in the long run they do. That's primarily happening -unlike with genes- because humans are the only agents of ideas. This means that a harmful enough idea will drive to the extinction the population that adheres to it. For example, legalized murder, we're now only remained with societies that have murder as an illegal practice and that's exactly because all those societies came from ancient societies (maybe even a single one) which decided that murder is not OK (and hence survived). The same can be said for every other idea that is harmful ENOUGH. It seems like terrorism, for example, till know was not as harmful to societies but now to a globalized culture it seems to finally becoming harmful enough, this means that if humans are to be around in -say- 1000 years of time terrorism won't be with us.
- lead2thehead, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4I would like to submit into evidence beenie babies, furby, and the pet rock.
- source1984, on 05/29/2008, -1/+0"memology" is common sense. Dawkins didn't have to take the time to even state that it exists. Okay, so ideas are selfish and exist regardless of if they're good or bad, okay, NOW WHAT? Was someone saying otherwise?
- Skywise, on 05/29/2008, -3/+1Uhhh... no.
"bad" ideas (even genes) propogate because they have at least SOME form of value to the user, no matter how worthless that value may be. Case in point, McDonalds, pet rocks, otherwise useless products that give the owner the ability to play one-up with their neighbor. Now "they propogate because they're good at getting adopted" but the article's author himself dismisses this quaint notion earlier: "First: product quality is important, no amount of marketing will alchemize a bad product into a good one."- cerejota, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Not true. In particular with repsect to genes. The mapping of hundreds of genomes has led to the discovery that genomes across all form of life are made up mostly of junk genes that nevertheless have survived evolutionary pressure.
Even the useful genes, such as those that generate eyes, have a humongous amount of junk around them. And even the crap that is useful, could be much better (I mean, the eye is a Rube Goldberg machine!).
Evolution is not a zero sum game, and it isn't a race to perfection. It is prone to crappy stuff. It doesn't produce magna cum laudes, just a bunch of C- graduates that graduate in spite, not because, the crap they carry around.- Skywise, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Right, but even the crappy stuff has some form of value (as seen around here). Let me rephrase... even something with neutral value still has value in some way shape or form. The only thing that gets evolutionarily "tested" are things that are inherently harmful and even then that's questionable if their value outweighs their harm.
- ICSU, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Skywise,
RTFA and read The Selfish Gene.
"Genes replicate for their own good, not the good of the host."
- cerejota, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Not true. In particular with repsect to genes. The mapping of hundreds of genomes has led to the discovery that genomes across all form of life are made up mostly of junk genes that nevertheless have survived evolutionary pressure.
- i88gerbils, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2I like to apply this to all the ***** diggs that get dugg up by the mindless masses.
- SLiPSTR34M, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2I'd like to add that this is definitely true in the music industry - I'm a senior at Berklee College of Music in Boston,MA and you guys would not believe the amount of talent that is there. I'm surrounded by some of the best players, singers, writers in the world. Yet almost none of them have exposure like alot of todays arguably 'bad' recording artists.... Mylie Cyrus, Britney, not to bash on them but there's absolutely no comparison when it comes to raw talent.
- ngmcs8203, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Yea but those "artists" are famous for one thing. Good looks. Out of all of the amazing artists that come out of your school, how many can sell a record with their ass or boyish good looks? John Mayer, a Berklee dropout, saw that it wasn't raw talent that was going to make him famous. It was about writing nice little love songs that the girls dropped their panties for.
- Fordi, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Dugg up for panty-dropping girls.
- xen271, on 05/29/2008, -0/+0pfft. who needs talent? what you need is *appeal.*
i honestly thought this thread was going to be about the adam savage goatse pic on SA - silikon2, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1'Raw talent' is not sufficient to make it in any business (usually). You have to have drive, ambition, yes networking, etc., and someone has to consider you 'sellable'. Someone could have the talent to be the next Mozart but if they sit at home playing video games, (etc etc etc).
- ngmcs8203, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Yea but those "artists" are famous for one thing. Good looks. Out of all of the amazing artists that come out of your school, how many can sell a record with their ass or boyish good looks? John Mayer, a Berklee dropout, saw that it wasn't raw talent that was going to make him famous. It was about writing nice little love songs that the girls dropped their panties for.
- myshl0ng, on 05/29/2008, -1/+6"If you like this post, follow me on Twitter."
Was anyone else put off from reading by that?- Cashmoney504, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2here here
- executorzz, on 05/29/2008, -2/+3Kind of like global warming, illegal immigration.
- rmccabe916, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1This finding does not necessarily mean culturally-spread ideas like these are bad...
Some of the talking points used by the people to discuss them are, but the problem may or may not be valid.
- rmccabe916, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1This finding does not necessarily mean culturally-spread ideas like these are bad...
- Cashmoney504, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4tay zonday
- ripple123, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3Some ideas spread because they appeal to idiots.
- diggdong, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Dugg for the Prof. Dennet TED video. Consciousness Explained should be mandatory reading for school children.
- sp3kter, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1dugg for the unicorn from cult of the dead cows myspace page ^^
- Zippo, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Dugg for unicorns.
- URnotheonly1, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1DUH!
- gandhirs, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Most ideas spread because they are stupid. Since most people are stupid too, they find an ideal environment to propagate.
- AYork, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Who actually thought that? Are people really that easily duped? Do I need to lower my expectations wrt intelligence?
For an idea to spread it has to be spread well. The quality, novelty, or merit of the idea has absolutely nothing to do with it. Who the hell is the moron that ever thought otherwise? - Bith8654, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Perfect example of this: Marijuana Prohibition
- DalamarArgent, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1Why is there always a half dozen SARS infected idiots hacking up lungs 5 feet from the mic in these things.
- Classico, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1I call shenanigans, this is the same country that wouldn't let people take down holiday decorations because they might fall, where they fine firefighters for sleeping in recliners without proper training... yet an entire town can do this?
- bot001220, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1@Czechxican
Not a good idea for who? The people who have blindly followed and even murdered for it or for the people in charge who use it to control people and get rich? - calipan, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1I counter his argument about what qualifies as a good meme. What give him the right to saw a meme gives value. 2girls1cup is a meme that spread quickly, and while it did not provide value to the cultural whole it satisfied a cultural need. Like the SAW movies it had shock value. If the meme had no value it would not spread. Simple as that. But these memes do spread because people love the adrenalin rush from being shocked as much as they like to help some girl dying of cancer by forwarding emails, or guessing word definitions to feed starving africans, or the lols they get form captioned cats. The author is not the end all be all defacto decider when a meme is good. Let society decide. If he doesn't like it then he must be the out of touch. Time to hang up your marketing had bud.
- mrinsanity, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1Like christianity!
- gmeluski, on 05/29/2008, -0/+0meaning that an idea has to be easy to adopt. Duh. I think this is a very basic tenet of design: how to make something very easy for the end user to enjoy. In essence, I think Apple graps this, and that explains their resurgence in popularity. They make their products intuitive and easy to use / adopt.
Things like terrorism and suicide are easy to adopt because they are both a simpler solution to a complex problem, though not the more thorough and healthy solution. They are, dare I say it, selfish. It would be better for the whole if an individual rejected the thought of suicide or terrorism in favor of one that is more beneficial to the good of other people. - quisph, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3Maybe I missed something, but I don't see the controversy here. I've never noticed any widespread belief that ideas spread because they're good. It would help if the author had given some specific examples of why he thinks this is a problem.
- ZMann, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2I don't know anyone who thinks viral or social marketing is particularly good at all.
This guy must be hanging out in some closeted circles. - anarchytv, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1Sites example: truck nuts!
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by